Can a child warrior win against a seasoned adult in your setting?

Can a child warrior win against a seasoned adult in your setting?

That seems to be a popular assumption in Japanese media (especially in the Isekai genre) but somewhat rare in the West.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/asEQeCfaEgE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Depends on a lot of factors: morality of the adult, type of combat, skill of the child, armor both parties are wearing, etc.

First of all "child warrior" is a bit of an oxymoron. And yes, a child can IN THEORY win a fight with a seasoned adult - it's just INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY. People work more-or-less the same in my world as they work in reality. Lack of physical strength, weight, experience and usually also psychological strength and determination are always going to put the child at a massive disadvantage. Most children won't find the guts to physically oppose adults anyway.
But if by sheer chance, the kid finds a gun, or manages to get off a lucky stab or something then yes. Extremely unlikely and rare, but in the end adults and children do bleed alike in the end.

No. It also doesn't have halflings/gnomes available as PC options, and goblins/kobolds are never fighters but slaves to more powerful creatures.

>First of all "child warrior" is a bit of an oxymoron

>Child
>a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

>Warrior
>(especially in former times) a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

Pic.

For the record, there are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers in Africa. Presumably not all of them die or run when faced with combat for the first time, so there are at least some of them with "experience" or "bravery" that would allow them to qualify as warriors.

yes, I mean, it is possible, wouldnt be commonplace but it can happen.

One historical example (from japan, but merely coincidence) is when Miyamoto Musashi killed a samurai in a duel at the age of 13, one can analyze that as the kid being awesome, but one can also realize that musashi was armed with a six foot long quarterstaff (dont be fooled by videogames, those are deadly as shit in the right hands) while his opponent only had a short sword, was reputed to be a shit swordsman and likely didnt expect to have to actually fight.

So, yeah, it depends on the situation

It's Traveller, so obviously

Yes.

Guns, 'ware, magic and adept powers are great equalizers.

Yeah. Maybe not in a boxing match or a swordfight most of the time, but a kid with a crossbow, musket, pre-set trap or talent for setting fires with her mind? You're no less fucked than if it was an adult, more or less.

Yes. A child warrior trained from infancy in a martial society will defeat a common mercenary with ease. It depends of their upbringing. In any case, those children are not supposed to fight in the first place, they are supposed to grow up in real, adult fighters first

Giving children a gun and sending them out to die is does not really make them warriors. It just makes them abused and most likely dead, and you an asshole or an average African politician.

Did you even fucking read that guy's post? Some of them survive, some of them with kills to their name. Some of them may survive more battles than the average adult in comparable battles. What needs to happen before they become warriors in your little semantic game?

Most fighters are about 15 years olds. It was also not rare to hear about young nobles directing armies. King Edward III lead at age 20 a full army of knights, men-at-arms, archers to battle against the Scots. Prince Edward was given command of a full battalion of vanguard at age 16

>What needs to happen before they become warriors in your little semantic game?
They need to become adults. Until then, you fucking idiot, they are just children with guns.

If you gave a fucking teeth drill and some pliers to a 7 years old and told him to go stick them into other people's mouths, would you call them dentists? And argue some of them managed to pull out more teeth than an average adult would do in the same scenario?

The fuck is wrong with you?

Under some arbitrary premise, nt likely. Crossbows, guns, magic, etc. are all viable factors at play here. A child could be responsible for the deaths of adults, but a child is almost never going to take the win vs experience in a fight, with minor exception to those unusual circumstances where it could logically occur.

In a straight up fight, same rules, even playing field, Hell even same equipment/gear/load out, adults going to take it.

Circumstantially yes, and also depends on what you consider a child.

The Demigod ruler of the snake men reincarnates after being killed, and matures rapidly at that. He can easily kill almost any grown man sent after him at the age of 3 days

An oxymoron is a term that contradicts itself. There is nothing contradictory about a child warrior.

This
Modern views of "children", and any purity or innocence associated only arose near the end of the 19th century. Before then a child was just another member of the household. If they could work, they could work and if they could fight, they could fight. Child soldiers are still commonplace these days and seeing 12-year olds in the army in the 12th century wouldn't have been common, but would have hardly been unheard of.
So yeah, reasonably speaking, it depends on how "seasoned" you mean by seasoned, but who lives or dies on the battlefield is largely down to luck anyway, so to answer OP: Usually no, but possibly in exceptional circumstances.

Except the words "warrior" and "child" you idiot. One implying immaturity and inability to become fully responsible for his life, thus requiring protection and guidance, while the other implies entirely self-reliable person who decided to life a life of violence.
Not even every SOLDIER - as in an adult person - is a warrior. Most aren't. Being a warrior means achieving some kind of identity that is always going to be AT A DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE INHERENTLY DEPENDENCY OF THE STATUS OF CHILD.

>Modern views of "children", and any purity or innocence associated only arose near the end of the 19th century. Before then a child was just another member of the household.
Oh god, yet another cretin parroting the Ariès bullshit. Fun fact: it's completely and utterly wrong and has been debunked and rejected buy just about every single historian and anthropologist in history.
Ideas of what childhood entails differ from society to society, but never was anything of the "it has been only another adult, childhood is a patriarchal bourgeoisie capitalist society to enslave women" that Ariès sprouts.

Seriously, Centuries of Childhood is a BAD BOOK, and everything Ariès said is wrong. Plain and simple. Please, please stop propagating this shit, it makes any actual academians life a living nightmare.

Pretty much this. A child who's being trained since birth to fight will have an advantage over nearly any untrained adult and they may also be used for sneak attacks and assassinations but generally you don't send children to fight adults but the adult will be surprsied when the child stabs them with a knife in a vulnerable spot

No. Plain and simple no. This is fucking sad.
WEIGHT AND MUSCLE MASS MATTERS, folk. So does coordination and basic experience.

Let me guess, you're one of those people who say you can arm a bunch of peasents with spears and defeat an army with no prior training (or replace spears with guns).

Obviously a big adult is considerably stronger than a child but if you're not expecting to get attacked then that gives the edge to the child soldier. Not all combat is direct with both parties fully aware of what's going on so you're autism is showing.

No, but I will say that a bunch of adults with no trainning will still defeat a bunch of children even with training. Most likely by talking to them very sternly.
Have you ever dealt with children, you moron? If you can fucking lift it with one hand, it's not going to pose much of a threat, even with all the fucking training in the world.

>Let me guess,

Please don't strawman like this.

Only if he has all the dominant, superior genes.

So you can do everything a warrior does, but not be a warrior because you don't meet the age requirement? Alright m8.

>If you gave a fucking teeth drill and some pliers to a 7 years old and told him to go stick them into other people's mouths, would you call them dentists?
No, but not of his age you fucking mongrel. It's because he doesn't have a dentistry degree. If a 7 year old somehow manages to get an entirely legitimate dentists degree, then he's a fucking dentist. It's just that this has never happened before.

>So you can do everything a warrior does, but not be a warrior because you don't meet the age requirement? Alright m8.
Precisely. Also a child is never going to be a warrior because a child will be always week at fighting, no matter what kind of traumatizing horrors you had put it through before. Sorry that anime lied to you.

>It's just that this has never happened before.
And the same applies to warriors. Seriously, how desperate you are to romanticize this shit? Again, what is wrong with you?

> Japan
So much Japanese YA fiction is "she or he won because they were always better than the opponent." It's fucking übermenchen and "hittinng a home run by being born on third base" all up in this. They even brag about it to each other, and the only tension is finding out "no, actually *I'm* the ubermench." So many conflicts that are over before they even start.

It's boring as hell -- campy at best. Give me conflicts where the hero fails forward, or puts in the work to grow.

>So much YA fiction

Fixed that for you. YA is a cesspool.

>and you an asshole or an average African politician.
Those are the same thing though.

Nowhere in any definition of "warrior" does it require you to be an adult. As well, "adulthood" is almost entirely a social construct that has often varied from place to place. In some places a girl is an adult as soon as she menstruates - so this could be as early as 10. And in some places a boy is an adult after his first kill. This could be as early as, I dunno, 5, given the right circumstances.

Even going to fiction, Conan the Barbarian was a warrior at the age of 14, probably earlier (he fought and killed in the Cimmerian's Sack of Venarium and explicitly says that he was 14 years old at the time, but I don't think that's stated to be his absolute first fight).

>would you call them dentists?

Dentistry requires training. Being a "warrior" simply requires that people call you such. There is no such thing as warrior school or formal warrior training or a warrior doctorate.

"Child" only means that you're not an adult, and like I said, what precisely constitutes "adulthood" can and has varied from place to place.

They can in theory I guess, but all else equal it's a hopeless mismatch. Children are greatly inferior in every regard. They need luck and the element of surprise to have a chance of doing some real harm. The picture there is more hilarious than threatening - a child in a bikini with twiggy arms and a cleaver of some sort? Pathetic.

The Japanese child idolization media thing is all a subculture with enough devotion and money to keep the industry afloat. It doesn't play well even there but they have to pander to it.

>As well, "adulthood" is almost entirely a social construct that has often varied from place to place.
the absolute state of Veeky Forums

>a child will be always week at fighting

Guns don't care, and you don't have to be particularly GOOD at fighting to be a warrior.

It's like the riddle:, what do you call a person who graduates last in their class from medical school? You call them "Doctor". They still graduated, no matter how poorly they did.

What do you call a person who fights on the battlefield and survives, even if they're objectively worse than everyone else on their team? You call them a warrior. They still fought and still survived.

>And the same applies to warriors
Except it fucking has, dimwit. Child warriors are and have always been a thing and have only recently become exceptional. Meanwhile I can't think of a single pre-pubescent child with a medical degree.

>how desperate you are to romanticize this shit?
Wouldn't it be convenient for you if I romanticized it, so you wouldn't need to confront your own fallacious reasoning? Such a shame I never did that and simply attacked you for your claim that children can by default not be classified as warriors, even if they do literally everything a warrior does.

>Those are the same thing though.
No. Smaller and larger sets. Every African politician is an asshole, but not every asshole is an African politician.

The thing about a lot of Japanese pop-culture storytelling is that it's A) focused on symbolism over fidelity - thus allowing for much greater levels of hyperbole and "twisting" the way the story is told or individual elements exaggerating it's themes, and B) they have this very strong national image - almost religious and indeed reflected in many Japanese religious practices - that WILL itself has magic-like properties that can transcend physical limitations.
It's where the kiai idea comes from, why people routinely shatter stone with their swords (or even with the the "force of the air" itself) - it's where the Dragon Ball power-levels and auras and shit come from. It's also where core themes of horrors such as Grudge or Ring comes from - again it's mostly about the sheer will of the original victim literally transcending physical world and manifesting itself even years after his death.

Jesus this is pathetic beyond all belief. How fucking more desperate will you get because of a couple of words?
Fun fact you spastic: if you want to throw social construction of meanings around, you might stop and realize that the same argument you throw in your favor can be used against it, with the social construction of the meaning of the word "Warrior" also being just as plastic - thus defeating not only your point, but actually making any point impossible to be made in this discussion.
Just fuck off, I'm tired of you. If you think you "won", be my guest. You obviously need it.

As for:
>Except it fucking has, dimwit. Child warriors are and have always been a thing and have only recently become exceptional.
I think this is pretty much the point where the level of absurdity and desperation shines so brightly there is really nothing much to add here. Wow, you are a piece of work.

I don't mean that in an SJW way. I mean that what different societies consider to be "adulthood" can and does vary. Hell, at its most basic, none of the countries in the Western world agree if it's ages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, or 21.

>Child warrior beating a veteran adult
Depends on their stats, gear and level

>more common in Japan
This goes back to two things really, one being a bit of Japanese propaganda from WWII when they tried to encourage the troops by telling them that in their hour of need they will be able to willpower their way through to victory. Every single anime hero that gets through by grit and determination goes back to this idea. And then, the West seems to have forgotten just how young most of our own legendary heroes were. Tons of them were only teenagers when they accomplished their mythic deeds, and already had histories of warfare and victory under their belts before that, yet we represent them as grown men. On top of that, it also seems common to forget that many of them were half deity, princes or kings, their innate ability being greater than other men due to birthright.

So basically you're shitting on Conan the Barbarian, is what I'm gathering.

I'm certain there was a time when that would have been a bannable offense...

>And then, the West seems to have forgotten just how young most of our own legendary heroes were.
You're talking about ancient Greece
That was 3000 years ago

...

>The thing about a lot of Japanese pop-culture storytelling is that it's A) focused on symbolism over fidelity - thus allowing for much greater levels of hyperbole and "twisting" the way the story is told or individual elements exaggerating it's themes, and B) they have this very strong national image - almost religious and indeed reflected in many Japanese religious practices - that WILL itself has magic-like properties that can transcend physical limitations.
>It's where the kiai idea comes from, why people routinely shatter stone with their swords (or even with the the "force of the air" itself) - it's where the Dragon Ball power-levels and auras and shit come from. It's also where core themes of horrors such as Grudge or Ring comes from - again it's mostly about the sheer will of the original victim literally transcending physical world and manifesting itself even years after his death.

This has been as much a part of Western storytelling as it has been a part of Eastern storytelling since the Illiad.

>that WILL itself has magic-like properties that can transcend physical limitations
>one being a bit of Japanese propaganda from WWII when they tried to encourage the troops by telling them that in their hour of need they will be able to willpower their way through to victory

This isn't unique to Japan. It's a fairly common belief among pre-modern societies, and was as rife in the west less than a hundred years ago. The idea that willpower, practice and skill can result in a supernatural level of ability that defies mere material matters crops up all over the world.

It remains pretty strong in most of East Asia and India because they developed very differently from the way we did. The way their wars were fought didn't actively dispel this notion, and they didn't have the same kind of Enlightenment process that we did.

Cú Chulainn was only seven when he went Conchobar gave him his arms and chariot, set out, and killed the three sons of Nechtan Scéne (who boasted that they had killed more Ulstermen then there were Ulstermen still living).

When he returned from the slaying he was still in his battle frenzy and the Ulstermen were afraid that he would kill them all. To stop this the Queen of Ulster turned out her maids, who bore their breasts to him. He averted his eyes, and in that moment all the men of Ulster wrestled him into cold water to try and calm him. The first barrel of cold water exploded from the force of his fury; the second one had all the water in it boil away; it was only after the third when he was calm again.

Again, he was seven at the time. Maybe eight.

For a more recent example, there's Davy Crocket, who killed himself a bear when he was only 3.

>So basically you're shitting on Conan the Barbarian, is what I'm gathering.
I'm not taking it very seriously, if that is what you are asking about.

>This has been as much a part of Western storytelling as it has been a part of Eastern storytelling since the Illiad.
Not even remotely as much, especially in regards to modern fiction.

>This isn't unique to Japan.
Not unique, but it is considerably more pronounced relative to our standards.

>Not even remotely as much, especially in regards to modern fiction.

You really need to read more modern Western Fiction then. I almost want to point you towards Capeshit, but that almost feels like cheating.

No, not even capeshit, even after has been PROFOUNDLY influenced in by Japanese pop-culture, does feature this nearly as consistently and strongly as most Japanese fantastic fiction does. Most of capeshit goes very long ways proving extended speculative justifications for the ability to perform supernatural feats, and almost never features the actual WILL ITSELF manifesting in some kind of physical form or at least imprinting on physical reality.

It makes me wonder why this notion makes people go apeshit though. It's not the first time I've seen insecure kids around here freak out when I talk about this subject. Do you people actually think that this is somehow seriously threatening your sense cultural superiority or what?

On another occasion, Cú Chullain tried to duel a bunch of warriors but they laughed at him and said "Come back when you're old enough to grow a beard". So he went out, made a fake beard out of wool, and came back.

>not unique to Japan
Agree on all points, it's just part of why we see it in Japanese media more these days. I'd have to look it up again but there was an interesting report a few years ago about who had what propaganda when and how it influenced modern cultures. For example, China has long held to a more "all things in due time" ranging from the whole "come back when you have trained more" to "yes you'll get that promotion in ten years." Meanwhile America has taken more of a Manifest Destiny approach to these ideas, which seems more generic and less impressive to the individual but good at getting large group cooperation. At least back when people were still buying it, these days it holds less weight.

>nd almost never features the actual WILL ITSELF manifesting in some kind of physical form or at least imprinting on physical reality.

Yes. That is will and NOT the actual fucking ring and lantern, right?

Again, this is kinda surreal. What makes you people so insufferable about this subject matter?

You don't actually know how it is that Green Lantern works, do you?

Oh, also, Dresden Files. In one book Dresden makes a point that even though magical power varies greatly between individuals and thus you could be totally outclassed by someone you're fighting, if you're drawn into a contest of willpower anyone has a chance to win no matter who they're up against.

Specifically this is when he was stupid enough to try and summon Mother Winter (albeit for good reasons). Magically, Mother Winter kicked his ass, but in their mental tete-a-tete Dresden was able to put up a fight - this *after* Dresden notes that Mother Winter's words and will are said with the same kind of authority as the guy who once said "let there be light."

I can probably find dozens more examples if I wanted to; the idea that magic is a manifestation of willpower is a pretty common trope.

>You don't actually know how it is that Green Lantern works, do you?
I'm not particularly familiar with this particular garbage, but as far as I know you are REQUIRED to wear the ring AND you have to regularly recharge it in order to be able to manifest your imagination in Green Lantern. Which means it's the ring and the power of the lantern, not the will itself. Without those, green laterns aren't able to use their powers, thus not following the logic I've described.

Also, your few pathetic anecdotical examples don't matter compared to the MASSIVE frequency this trope is being used in Japanese pop fiction, anime in particular. It's completely normal even in non-fantastic anime (in Ranma, Kuno routinely cuts through trees with his boken, in Kenshin characters break rocks with the blow of their swords regardless of their physical builds, in Paranoia Agent and Suicide Club the innate desire to destroy yourself literally manifests as demons threatening the world, and in just about every comedy anime you'll see scenes where embarrasment or anger literally results in explosions often taking down entire blocks of houses and so on...).
It's just DRASTICALLY more common in Japanese fiction, both as a form of visual aid and as a core theme of narratives.

The real question is: why do you so desperately desire to prove this not to be true? What exactly is at stake for you here?

Depends. In fair duel - extremely unlikely. Ambush is best bet.

Depends on a number of factor but as with almost all combat situation victory usually comes to who can surprise the other first

not claiming the rest of your post is untrue as I think your general point is right, but (green) rings specifically (unless this has been retconned) only work if you have super high willpower, tot he point where only a few sapients over a ridiculously huge area of space can manage to wield them (at various points people like batman and superman have been unable to muster up the willpower to use them). additionally, experienced lanterns can eventually learn to exert some level of control without wearing their ring.

>What do you call a person who fights on the battlefield and survives
A veteran, retard.

Do you want to talk about Batman and the things he (and his bat/bird subordinates) are capable of.

>It's just DRASTICALLY more common in Japanese fiction.

You really don't seem up to date with what the western kids are watching. Rather than Ki or Chi, we've got shows with "psychics", which was also the general force behind Paranioa Agent.

Also, did you just say Ranma or Kenshin weren't Fantastic? The shows with guys who turn into pandas or are nearly two stories tall?

It hasn't been retconned. The rings only work if you have super-high Willpower.

>only work if you have super high willpower,
Yeah, but that still does not follow the logic in the slightest. The idea in Japan is that will power itself is magical and can manifest itself. It does not require particular special one, neither some tools and ancient orders to be unlocked: it's a profound part of human BEING ITSELF. The concept of green lantern itself is speculative, and also relies quite heavily on external factors, including a mild version of "being the special/chosen one".

Which by the way seems to me to be one of the two specific American (or western) counterparts to Japanese fascination with will power itself: it's the magical properties of being UNIQUE, chosen, or believing in yourself, often all three at the same time.
Which is not to say that these themes don't appear in Japanese fiction (for that one idiot who still does not differenciate between prominence and existence), but they seem to particularly obsessive themes in American pop fiction.

God you are a fucking idiot. I give up.
Please call me when Batman's actual WILLPOWER manifests itself as a demon or literally beats up his opponents without any physical object touching them.
Really, I give up.

>The idea in Japan is that will power itself is magical and can manifest itself

That's not what harnessing Ki is. Will power can control energy, but it's not "Will power IS energy".

>Please call me when Batman's actual WILLPOWER manifests itself as a demon or literally beats up his opponents without any physical object touching them.

A psychic once "unlocked" a separate psychic (and physical) manifestation of Batman's dark psyche that he had been keeping suppressed.

The setting has a lot of guns that are lightweight, very accurate, and have low recoil. There are also several species that grow to full size very quickly. Guns and stealth are great equalizers, but there are also a lot of defensive technologies that make a well seasoned soldier a far tougher nut to crack than a child with a gun or a knife in the dark.
So no, an adult veteran is more than a match for a child soldier in my setting based on the equipment they would each possess.

>Will power can control energy, but it's not "Will power IS energy".
Ki, as written by 気 is a complex and multilayered notion of energy itself directly related to manifestation of will. While the older Chinese counterpart speaks about it more as an environmental notion of energy flowing through the world itself, Japanese emphatize its connection to (human or human-like) will, and incorporate it into most basic notions all related to psychic state, intention, attention, general state of mind. Will itself is an actual manifestation of Ki - or one of it's sides.

>A psychic once "unlocked" a separate psychic (and physical) manifestation of Batman's dark psyche that he had been keeping suppressed.
I have no idea which particular god-forgotten itteration of Batman you speak about, but through out 99% of the mythos, Batman is a guy who defeats his enemies through his superior intelligence, insane wealth he accumulated, and superior limb based ninja training.
Pretty much all of american capeshit stories are so insanely milked out and have so many alternations and variations that in the end, you'll find literally ALL possible scenarios appearing in some stupid edition at some point just because of how desperate the authors were to come up with some idea to give the protagonist something to do, but it's hardly a fucking central notion of the damn characters or the functions of the universe.

It's still incomparable to the frequency with which this theme appears in japanese popular culture.

Ki and Qi (or Chi) are largely interchangeable. The difference in the Kanji is just from a blanket updating of kanji into a more modern form. The concepts are still basically the same, and are largely concerned with the flow of energy, and traditionally has been more concerned with understanding it rather than attempting to control it, both in China and Japan.

>superior limb based ninja training.

Batman trained not just his limbs, but his mind and willpower. He's a full fledged martial artist in several "mystic" and "exotic" martial arts, and I think one of the best explorations of this was in Gotham Knight.

youtu.be/asEQeCfaEgE

Either way though, I hope you don't walk away with the idea that if you ask to get refuted, and then you get refuted, you can continue to walk and talk like you got balls of brass or something. You're positing a largely baseless assumption, and blurring the lines when you don't want to see them and creating unique distinctions to support your claim even when they're not really that distinct.

This isn't even entirely your fault. Westerners have been trying to promote Western inventions as "Eastern" because it makes them seem mystical and special. From Western Characters like Dr. Strange and Iron Fist who derive their powers from Eastern mystics to McDojo American "Karate" to those fake rust powder "detoxifying" foot pads, people like to lean on the East to make things seem special, even when the West is filled with our own brands of psychics, bullshit, and snake oil.

The funny thing is that a large part of what you're trying to do is what even Japan does at times, in the sense that they try to promote "Superhuman feats" as mystical and foreign. Even Dragonball introduced the idea of Ki through characters based on Chinese martial arts.

>Ki and Qi (or Chi) are largely interchangeable.
They actually aren't. There is no doubt what so ever that the notion of Ki is derived from original Chinese Qi, but the actual use and implications differenciated over time as the Japanese adjusted it to their own needs and religious or philosophical customs. There is a reason why the Japanese never deeply integrated Feng-Shuei into their culture outside of isolated high-art notions (such as garden architecture), but instead developed notions such as Kiai, which isn't really present in China.

>Batman trained not just his limbs, but his mind and willpower.
God you are dumb. Being strong willed is not the same as assuming that EVERYONE's will can DIRECTLY MANIFEST ITSELF as a physical entity, into the world.
Really, how fucking long will you keep this shit up? This is BEYOND PATHETIC.

>Westerners have been trying to promote Western inventions as "Eastern" because it makes them seem mystical and special.
So I was right. All of this is nothing but desperate scream of "stop taking away my feeling of western superiority, REEEE!"
Which is fucking sad because at no point of the discussion I ever even implied that this particular parttern in Japanese narrative should be in any way associated with evaluative notions. It's you who feels insecure and threatened by the very notion that East Asian perspectives might different, and has to run home and suck his thumb repeating "they still got it from us, we are STILL THE BEST" here. That is literally the root of this issue. And as I said, I'm very much sick of it already.

You're really trying to stress a superficial distinction that isn't really there (between ki and chi), while also maintaining that Western Psychics and Eastern Mystics aren't effectively the same thing under different flavors. It's bizarre, because I don't even understand what point you're hoping to make aside from that there's no shortage of ways you can be wrong.

>Being strong willed is not the same as assuming that EVERYONE's will can DIRECTLY MANIFEST ITSELF as a physical entity, into the world.

Batman is the kind of character that winds up getting written by many different writers, and ultimately winding up in many different worlds with many different rules on what's possible and what isn't. Some present him as borderline human, but more often than not he is capable of superhuman feats simply thanks to the writer's inexperience with the human limits.

But, the basic idea is that Batman isn't an alien. The basic presentation is that EVERYONE is CAPABLE of what Batman is, given sufficient willpower (and wealth, and intelligence), and that includes silly things like releasing a bat demon from your mind when poked by a psychic.

>So I was right

No, you are just as wrong and dishonest as those Kinoki footpad sellers.

And, please, don't try this ridiculous "You're a Western supremacist!" angle. If you had actually listened to what I've been telling you, you'd have heard me say that you are trying to construct an illusionary distinction between West and East based entirely on your limited perception that is reinforced solely by largely arbitrary personal distinctions you make for yourself. I'm not saying West is better, I'm saying that it's really not that much different from the East.

There are differences, but when we've got common counterparts to everything from nature energy to will=might, especially in the modern era where interchange between distant cultures is frequent and common, those difference are rendered largely superficial.

It's a thing in Japanese media because Japanese people desperately want to be children again since adult life sucks in Japan

That's not the case in America and especially not in Europe, so it's not a form of escapism that appeals to westerners

>That's not the case in America and especially not in Europe, so it's not a form of escapism that appeals to westerners
Aside from the weebs. And the rapidly growing fanbase for anime in the west as a whole.

Hell, even Osama Bin Laden was watching fandubbed hentai.

>That's not the case in America and especially not in Europe, so it's not a form of escapism that appeals to westerners
I would not be so sure about it. Us being incredibly cynical towards childhood and children in general while simulateneously being delusional towards adulthood does not necessarily mean our lives are so much better.

In other words, they don't want to be children again so that form of escapism doesn't appeal to them

>You're really trying to stress a superficial distinction that isn't really there
You being ignorant of finer distinctions does not mean they don't exist: it just means you are ignorant of their presence.

>hile also maintaining that Western Psychics and Eastern Mystics aren't effectively the same thing under different flavors
They really aren't, but again: "I don't know anything, which means I'm right anyone with more elaborate insight into the issue is WRONG!"

>It's bizarre, because I don't even understand what point you're hoping to make
Further proof that you are an idiot. I actually made my point incredibly clear. The point is that there are certain distinctions and specific patterns to prefered narrative tools and subjects between west and east, West and Japan in particular. Why would you ever actually want to deny that? Well.. I've already established that too.

>Batman is the kind of character that winds up getting written
Either proving my own point, or being irrelevant. Seriously, you are still maintaining that Batman's super-powers and gadget are essentially the same thing as the character of Shonen Batto in Paranoia Agent. This is sad.

>The basic presentation is that EVERYONE is CAPABLE of what Batman is, given sufficient willpower (and wealth, and intelligence)
And also being born in a superhero universe. Also, why do you actually insist on making my own point for me, then still claiming that I'm the one wrong?

>If you had actually listened to what I've been telling you
I had, and so far I've learned that Batman is the same as spirits from Grudge and Ring, and that everything that I percieve as more prominently Japanese is Western in origin, just dressed up to look asian because that sells better.

>entirely on your limited perception
Are you yourself not aware of the insane hypocrisy that you are spouting here?

EVERYTHING IN JAPAN IS JUST BATMAN! YOU ARE BEING JUST IGNORANT IF YOU DON'T REALIZE THAT!

>In other words, they don't want to be children again so that form of escapism doesn't appeal to them
They do value childhood as the most beautiful part of life without a doubt, I'm not actually denying that. And yes, the subject of wanting to return to it is incredibly prominent, along side of the subject of finding reasons to avoid suicide, which both will come across as pretty horrifying way to look at the world.
However, I would not be so quick to assume that is because "their lives just SUCK", nor would I dare to claim that we aren't exactly as prone to escapistic fantasies as they are.

>The point is that there are certain distinctions and specific patterns to prefered narrative tools and subjects between west and east, West and Japan in particular.

Except all the ones you have presented have been wrong, demonstrated as wrong when pressed, and yet you atill continue on these bizarre tirades that go further and further from anything even resembling a coherent point.

What you are hoping to do is draw superficial lines between East and West. The Ring is different from Batman (congratulations on noticing this), but not all that different from Western ghost stories and the concept of poltergeists, and shares with the latter more than it does with traditional Japanese mythology and ghost stories.

Yeah but OP is saying "Can a child win against a seasoned adult in your setting?"

Even in africa a unit of child soldiers won't win against PMCs, sure they might kill some soldiers but they won't have the experience, morale, determination, training, etc etc

Also the key is:
>in your setting

Yes a child with a gun can kill an adult, congratulations

Are there guns in your setting? Guns easy enough for children to operate? Because a fucking 8 year old isn't going to load a musket user

>rare in the West.

Just because you watch a lot of kiddy anime and think it's meant for adults doesn't mean it's actually any different, it's dead common in the west. In children's programming.

Kids win over adults *all the time* in western kid stuff. You're just too good to watch western children's cartoons.

I don't think you get what I meant.

In Japan, adults are expected to work much harder and get way less free time as adults than Americans and Europeans, and those who aren't overworked, AKA Hikikomori, are far less social than western NEETs. As a result, Japanese escapism tends to be very reminiscent and plays to the viewers nostalgia. Western escapism, on the other hand, tends to be much more aspirational, featuring accomplished adult characters doing cool shit

>demonstrated as wrong when pressed
WHERE?!
I have literally not seen you demonstrate even the most rudimentary knowledge of either of the concepts so far. You just said NUH. Please give me Chinese equivalent of the concept of Kiai. Please give me examples of Japanese use of Ki in relation of non-will-power-endoved objects, and Chinese equivalents to the concept of Kiai, Kiomoi, Genki. Come on.

>What you are hoping to do is draw superficial lines between East and West
And you are fucking pathetically desperate to deny them without having even a shred of evidence, literally saying but MUH BATMAN here.

>but not all that different from Western ghost stories and the concept of poltergeists,
Except poltergeists are not originally actually even originating in human spirit you fucker. What the FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. Do you not know that German Poltergeist is a naturally occuring spirit? Did you not notice that Japanese Ghosts are mostly manifestation of last will of the dying person while western Ghosts are more often than not manifestion of his PERSONALITY, or result of him being tied to the world by guilt and incomplete business? Did you not notice that the WHOLE FUCKING TWIST or Ring was that the spirit is a manifestion of malicious desire, rather than debt or incomplete chain of business - literally using the western standard for ghostly presence as a bait-and-switch to reveal it's more Japanese idea to surprise the viewers?
Are these differences too subtle to you? Well, if they are, then fuck off. YOU NOT KNOWING DOES NOT MEAN OTHERS ARE WRONG. It's that fucking simple.

>thinks 300,000 little african shits with ak's stand a fucking chance against their equal number of adult professional soldiers

These kids are press ganged into militias, beaten and raped until they submit to local warlords bullshit and sent out as cannon fodder because their AK's are worth more than they are. They are taught how to operate their weapons and but beyond that they are not taught infantry tactics.

They are used as fucking cannon fodder precisely because they are not warriors nor are they soldiers, they're a bunch of terrified and brainwashed little faggots who are ordered into frontal assaults because they are expendable and the punishment for disobeying is more beatings and not getting to eat that day at best and bullet to the head at worst.

>you don't have to be particularly good at fighting to be warrior
>what do you call a person who fights on the battlefield and survives, even if they're objectively worse than everyone else on their team? a warrior
No, I call him a fucking shitbag because him surviving probably means a good man died in his place and I'll take every fucking opportunity to remind him of that

It would be a mistake to assume everyone who isn't hiki-komori is overworked. Though the working conditions in Japan are harsh, Japan also has much more significant symbolic and value-based justification for their participation in the society.

West and Japan are equally as prone to escapism, but there are two major differences to identify:
A) Western escapism does not focus on childhood because we actually both value and accommodate it relatively much less. While Japanese Adulthood is harsher on an individual, childhood is much more accommodating than childhood in West. We don't want to escape to it (as much as Japanese, there is plenty of "escape into childhood" fantasies in west, though Japan has much more of them) because we just don't think very highly of it, and because honestly, we take much less effort to make it as pleasant experience. Japs are - all things considered - obsessive about their children and their well being. It has deep roots.

Second of all: Your notion of western fantasies being considerably more aspirational is interesting, and I think holds a LOT of validity. However, it's important that our escapist fantasies are also very often drenched in elements of undue value of yourself and contempt for your peers - ideas that Japanese society finds extremely detestable. We like to stile ourselves as better than others - often based PRECISELY on the elements that make us feel alienated from others. We dream of being the chosen ones, the great leaders, to be above the society. We REALLY like to dream the our own society as antagonistic force too.

Now, before that other fellow starts again spazzing out: I'm not actually saying this to imply one is better than the other. I think both poles (we are talking about somewhat exaggerated "model extremes" after all) are equally as valid, and both speak about good and bad elements of each individual society. Just warning about one-sided interpretations based on often very shallow stereotypes.

Easily. Guns and cyberware are a thing.

>8 year old isn't going to load a musket
Actually that's exactly the kind of motor control you can expect from an eight year old, and why they made good workers before child labor laws were invented.

You've tried to pretend their was a huge distinction between ki and qi, despite most sources arguing otherwise and certainly not in the manner you are hoping to present. Hell, kiai is a novelty based around startling people and used for point scoring, and you're hoping to use it as your central thesis to a metaphysical argument.

And, when there is a counterpart to everything you're hoping to call distinct or unique, that evidence renders your argument into one that you were even forced to recognize as subjective, hence you adopting lukewarm phrases such as "more common" since there's enough evidence to dismiss you from attempting a phrase stronger than that. But, in this subjective arena, you are erring towards the side of "the East is mystical and special", while I'm systematically providing counterparts to illustrate how much of this uniqueness is actually shared.

And, rather than mouthing off yet again on pointless superficial differences, notice that the poltergeist and Ring are both distinctly undivine, aetheistic, and rooted not in the idea of spirits, but in psychic emanations and imprinting.

Please notice that for every difference you present, there is a further counterpart, to a degree where it's almost as if these broad cultures have interchanged their ideas while also coincidentally originating similar ones, to the point where hoping to draw clear lines bewteen the two is often reduced to mere aesthetics.

Aren't those abuse victims, used because people who aren't total shitbags would rather avoid hurting children?

I think the issue is that there's fewer western cartoons in general.

>despite most sources arguing otherwise and certainly not in the manner you are hoping to present.
I see you totally answering my questions or presenting those sources, fuckface.
Also: significant =/= huge.

>Hell, kiai is a novelty based around startling people and used for point scoring,
Literally and provably wrong. Again, what is wrong with you? Googling the idea to hard for you?
Again you utterly failed to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence that you actually know what the fuck you are talking about.

>that evidence renders your argument into one that you were even forced to recognize as subjective
And now you play the "but it's all subjective card!"

>since there's enough evidence to dismiss you
You, you piece of garbage, have provided exactly NONE evidence what so ever.
I use phrases such as "significant" or "considerable" because we are talking about subjects that are complex and aren't absolutely clear cut. Unlike you, I am actually aware of the complexity of the issue, and I don't deny that on anecdotical level you could provide counterpoints - but that there are more significant patterns on statistic levels.

>you are erring towards the side of "the East is mystical and special",
Absolutely not. That is purely your projection, because that is the only way someone could argue for non-superirity of West, your greatest fear.
There is nothing mystical about it. Neither is it "more special". It's just different in a non-trivial way. For every thing "unique" to Japan, there is one thing "unique" to West. Pointing out that two things are different does not mean saying that one thing is more unique than the other: both are equally unique relative to each other, because they aren't the same.

YOU are the one still trying to find some evaluative angle to this shit, while I merely state simple facts.

>but in psychic emanations and imprinting.
"Both are nonphysical". Yeah, that is about the level of resolution I can expect from you, I guess.

>Flintstone, Snagglepuss, Jetsons
Cartoons that are nearly two decades apart are in the same theather.

>Bottom characters
Not even a decade apart some some of the newer above characters. In a different theather.

Alright. I agree with that that image is trying to tell, but seriously someone should do some fucking fact checking.

Can it happen? Anything can happen.

Can you count on it? Not even close.

...

>I see you totally answering my questions or presenting those sources, fuckface.

Every source I've found uses them interchangeably. Hell, they didn't even bother with a second wiki page for the two concepts.
If you have the source that explains the difference as you have asserted there to be, the burden of proof is on you.

>You, you piece of garbage, have provided exactly NONE evidence what so ever.
Ignoring supporting evidence does not mean it hasn't been provided, it means you are being disingenuous.

>Unlike you, I am actually aware of the complexity of the issue,
Hence why your entire argument is a ridiculous blanket statement, of course.

>"Both are nonphysical". Yeah, that is about the level of resolution I can expect from you, I guess.

You are ignoring the primary consideration, and what puts the Ring closer to Western Atheistic Psychic emanations such as Poltergeists than the traditional Japanese spirits it superficially resembles.

>YOU are the one still trying to find some evaluative angle to this shit, while I merely state simple facts.

Please. You have provided nothing but bizarre conjectures and demanded that other people take the same mental leaps you have, to the point where you think Kiai somehow makes "Ki" more physical than "Qi" while ignoring all the "mystical" physical martial arts demonstrations that are rooted in China.

Above all else, you really need to calm down. You've been flustered and angry from the start, which is why you're now acting like a mouse in a corner. Just take a deep breath, and actually read what was written, and try to see things beyond your "You must be a Western Supremacist!" bullshit enough to recognize this isn't about who's better or worse, but recognizing the shared connections between superficial distinctions.

Modern days with a gun?
Sure, guns are easy as shit.

Fantasy with a sword? Probably not unless they get the drop on the adult, somehow.

>fantasy
How low fantasy are you thinking of?

>some dumbass gets it in their head that a person 17 years and 364 days old can't be a warrior because it doesn't meet their personal definition they pulled out of their ass
>thread goes to shit

>Every source I've found uses them interchangeably.
Which is why you are sharing these great and relevant sources with all of us, no doubt.

>If you have the source that explains the difference as you have asserted there to be, the burden of proof is on you.
No, the burden of proof is equal. Except I provided a more consistent claims, provided examples, and asked you to react to them. You provided exactly squat.

>Ignoring supporting evidence does not mean it hasn't been provided
Just copy-paste that evidence from previous posts for me, would you?

>Hence why your entire argument is a ridiculous blanket statement, of course.
I provided both much more nuanced, and more specific statements than you had, kid.

>You are ignoring the primary consideration
You had not provided any. First of all you unironically use the word "atheist" here which is laughable in so many ways. Second of all, your argument is that they are the same because on the most superficial level, you don't see any difference. "Both are magic and not real", basically.
Ignoring that one is literally a product of an actual human's dying will, the other a natural occurence. If you knew ANYTHING about basic folklore, you'd actually know that Poltergeist does have a Japanese folklore equivalent already. It's zashiki-warashiki, which, like Poltergeist, is a form of natural (non-human in origin) household spirit manifesting itself through mischief and ability to move household items around, and is very specifically tied to a singular home.
Meanwhile, the spirits in Ring and Grudge are literally products of human will (only born when an actual person died or suffered in the location), specifically malevolent (not all polterigeist are), in case of Ring not even tied to a singular location.

But again, expecting any level of actual fidelity to anything that you said is futile, I guess.

>you think Kiai somehow makes "Ki" more physical than "Qi"
You don't even read what I say, do you?

Ya know, the amount of insults you're throwing at this guy really makes me agree with you a lot more than if you were more professional. Absolutely.

I can say with absolute honesty: I don't give a fuck. If you care about that more than the actual argument, you are literally absolutely not worth being taken seriously to begin with.

So how come American soldiers who were not brutalized from a young age tend to skullfuck these warriors?

I'll give you a hint. Practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect.

Hey man, I'm not the guy you're arguing with. Feel free to laugh at me all you want.

>If you care about that more than the actual argument
Oh honey. Ever heard of spite?

>Hey man, I'm not the guy you're arguing with. Feel free to laugh at me all you want.
Believe it or not, but I see absolutely no reason to laugh at you, or anyone else in this thread. Despite how it may come across, I continue to argue because I genuinely assume that despite all this shit, the other person either might be right, or at least is worth enough to be worth being corrected. If I really felt superior to anyone in this thread, I would not argue with them in the first place...

>Oh honey. Ever heard of spite?
Yeah. But I don't think spite itself is the crux of the problem here - neither with the guy desperately denying the possibility of cultural differences between Japan and West (or Japan and China), or the guy complaining about my use of profanity and insults.

I think the problem in both cases is insecurity, not spite. And insecurity can be - at least on some level, challenged rationally.

>No, the burden of proof is equal. Except I provided a more consistent claims, provided examples, and asked you to react to them. You provided exactly squat.

You've provided zero sources.
Here's a common source that overturns you. First link on google even, which makes it a "it's embarassing that you're asking for this source" level of insistence on your part.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi

Now, your turn to provide a source that supports your claims.

>Second of all, your argument is that they are the same because on the most superficial level, you don't see any difference. "Both are magic and not real", basically.

I was wondering what your fundamental flaw as a human being was. Thought it was that you are firmly on mount stupid, and while that's true, it's actually more that you are an argumentative person with more pride than sense, and when backed into a corner, instead of conceding you will desperately try to change the argument and ignore the refutation presented to you.

Now, let me walk you through something.